masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Ban Review Panel
Ok folks... so, this is something I've been mulling over for a bit. I talked it over (metaphorically, since it was all done via email) with the admins, and they were all kosher with it after we tweaked some things and clarified some matters. Basically, this is a proposal to establish a set of standards for reviewing long-term and permanent bans. Here's the guidelines that were agreed upon. I'm submitting them here for review, and I'll start up a vote, to see how everyone feels about it. (Note - the admins already agreed to this unanimously, so it's already a done deal as far as I'm concerned. If the community is overwhelmingly against for some reason, we'll reassess and reevaluate and all that. I won't just ramrod it through or anything.) Ban Review Panel guidelines *Anyone may request a review. However, only a Bureaucrat, Administrator, or Senior Editor may initiate a review. When doing so, the individual submitting the case must state the name of the individual, the reason for submitting the case (making a case for the review), and the desired outcome (i.e. do they want the ban lifted or merely shortened). *Once a case has been submitted for review, a review panel will be assembled consisting of three persons, all of whom must be Bureaucrats, Administrators, or Senior Editors. At least one member of the panel must be an Administrator or Bureaucrat. *Selections will be made by a Bureaucrat or Administrator on the basis of a rotating schedule, subject to availability. Any potential judge who wishes to speak for or against the individual under review, or who feels otherwise biased toward or against the individual, is expected to recuse themselves. *Once a panel has been selected and the case convened, a seven-day public comment period will commence. Editors who so choose may speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposal. Judges may ask questions of these editors, to seek clarification or explanation, but otherwise may not take part. They are, however, expected to familiarize themselves with the comments. *At the close of the seven-day period, the judges will deliberate in private. Any decision to lift or reduce a ban must be unanimous. *Regardless of the result, once a verdict has been reached, the senior judge, determined by position (Bureaucrat superseding Administrator, Admin superseding Senior Editor), then (if necessary) by seniority, will assign one member of the panel to present the verdict of the panel as well as the reason for the decision, in the form of an “opinion”, to the public. *Should the verdict to keep the ban in place, a minimum of three months must elapse before the case can be submitted for review again. If possible, when a case is submitted for review a second time, as much of the panel as possible should have been uninvolved in the previous case. Voting VOTING HAS CLOSED. THE PROPOSAL PASSES 3-2-1 For # As author of the proposal and guidelines. SpartHawg948 10:06, October 6, 2011 (UTC) # -- Commdor (Talk) 19:15, October 6, 2011 (UTC) #I approve. Lancer1289 02:05, October 7, 2011 (UTC) Neutral #I am remaining neutral for the moment because I am having some difficulty understanding this. User:JediSpectre117 11:56, October 8, 2011 (UTC) # I'm with Jedi on this. Bluegear93 12:28, October 8, 2011 (UTC) Against #I'm a little disturbed by the provision that a unanimous vote is required. It's hard to get 3 people to agree on anything of any weight unanimously, and since this is a decision of near-permanent condition, I think simple majority should stand. This prevents on person from exercising "veto" power and dissuades the appearance of vendetta. Against as written.--Captainhu 05:55, October 7, 2011 (UTC) Discussion In response to Captainhu's concern - you'll note that, as written, the policy explicitly states that any potential judge who may have some sort of vendetta or grudge is expected to recuse themselves. You also have to figure that the result isn't final (3 months is hardly "near-permanent"), as a person can go up for review again, and that the next time, it'll be different people judging the case. Additionally, we're talking 9 (I think) potential judges. Even assuming someone does have a grudge, that's only a 1 in 8 chance that the person with the grudge will be tasked to judge the matter (since 1 person is ineligible automatically for introducing the case), and a 0 in 8 chance they would get selected the second time. Trust me, when I was drafting the policies, the possibility of grudges was taken very seriously, and I did everything in my power to prevent it from being an issue. And as it so happens, I originally did have this set up where a simple 2/3 majority sufficed. The admins didn't like it. All three of them (IIRC) wanted it to be unanimous. SpartHawg948 06:20, October 7, 2011 (UTC) I acknowledge that an actual vendetta would be unlikely. I am more concerned by the appearance than the fact. As for the term of suspension, this all takes place in cyberspace, so three months is very close to effective infinity. People tend to give up and move on after three days, and while it is easy to dismiss those without the will to fight, the existence of this panel would suggest the possibility that an injustice has been done. I think you should skew your vote toward exoneration in that case. If 2 out of 3 impartial judges feel the ban should be shortened or lifted, that should prevail. Your admins feel differently and that's fine, but if there are other editors who feel as I do, I've got my views on record.--Captainhu 03:44, October 8, 2011 (UTC) Implementation The vote has concluded and with a 3-2-1 vote, meaning that the Ban Review Panel has passed. A new page will be created, Mass Effect Wiki:Ban Review Panel and the instructions will be pasted there. I'm sure Spart will adjust things when he gets on later, but I'll do my best to set up the page. Lancer1289 23:20, October 14, 2011 (UTC)